Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Amazing Person That Was Meredith Kercher #4: Sue Carroll Captures The Growing Mood

Posted by Peter Quennell


Sue Carroll reflects on Meredith and Amanda Knox in today’s Daily Mirror

I wonder, if Amanda Knox had the saturnine looks of a psycho-killer, would US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton be interested in fighting her conviction for murdering fellow student Meredith Kercher?

It is a shocking but entirely predictable reflection of our image-conscious society that we don’t expect a bright, multi-lingual student with a penchant for writing fiction (albeit warped) to be a brutal killer.

We like our she-devils Rose West-shaped with the harsh staring eyes of a Myra Hindley and a bit of Lady Macbeth thrown in.

That a dewy skinned, nubile young woman could plunge a knife into the neck of her flatmate in a drug and drink-fuelled rage doesn’t compute.

Even her nickname, Foxy Knoxy, has connotations of sauciness and frivolity, not the blatant wickedness of which she was found guilty along with ex-boyfriend and accomplice Raffaele Sollecito in an Italian court last week.

From the moment Meredith was found semi-naked in a pool of blood at the cottage she shared with Knox, attention has been focused on one woman only ““ the accused.

Articulate and flirtatious with moist Bambi eyes, her status, carefully manipulated by her garrulous publicity-driven parents, morphed from suspected murderer to victim long before the trial. A flight home had been arranged and grandiose plans were afoot for the prodigal daughter’s return with lucrative book deals in the pipeline, movie rights under discussion and TV interviews planned.

The brutal murder of a beautiful young girl in a vile sex game was turned into a side issue. The fact Knox had wantonly and without a single vestige of shame named an innocent man, Patrick Lumumba, as Meredith’s killer was also conveniently forgotten by fans and family.

By contrast the dignity shown by the Kerchers, who have expressed only relief at the guilty verdict, could not be further removed from the crass insensitivity of the Knox clan who don’t merely protest their daughter’s innocence but threaten to turn it into a political row, pointing the finger at Italian justice and citing anti-American prejudice.

What clap-trap.

An interesting challenge since the jury also condemned Italian-born Sollecito to the same fate as Knox. And spare us, please, the tales of how the condemned cries herself to sleep at night.

I’ll reserve my sympathy for Arline Kercher, who says she can never bring herself to sell the family’s Surrey home because if she did Meredith would never know where to find her.

“It’s silly really,” says Arline. No, it’s not. When the physical bond has been ripped away all that’s left for the bereaved are emotional ties and associations.

For exactly the same reason Kate McCann has vowed to stay in the only home her missing daughter Madeleine ever knew. To leave it would feel like abandoning her child and for both these mothers constant reminders and memories, not bitterness or anger, are what keeps them going.

Meanwhile, I’d suggest the Knox family take their distasteful publicity machine home and consider themselves fortunate their daughter’s trial was conducted on European not American soil.

They have a special kind of punishment for killers in the good old US of A. It’s called the death penalty. Is that the justice they would have preferred?


Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/08/09 at 06:10 AM in Concerning MeredithHer memoryNews media & moviesGreat reporting


Comments

What is the mission of this site? I am really confused. True Justice, right? True Justice is based on a fair trial. I have followed the case in all three countries’ media. I reviewed all of your presented evidence as it has evolved. Much of it is what was brought up in court, and others are invented timelines of how Knox et al. could have done it.

The media is making mistakes on all fronts, but the fact is real professionals have looked at the facts from various angles are on both sides of the fence in all three countries. Not just from comments media brainwashed folks on multitudes of articles, blogs, and video postings. You need to accept that there is highly divided opinion on this and thus sounds like way too much doubt about their actual guilt.

This isn’t True Justice because a verdict came in. Anyway - I just made my 500USD donation to amandadefensefund org.

The content about Meredith is building a wonderful living memory of her. Don’t stain it by being a voice supporting a highly criticized trial. Objective information from all viewpoints is appreciated to uncover the truth. The truth is stubborn and will be uncovered.

Posted by curtperon on 12/08/09 at 04:16 PM | #

Ciao curtperson,

I (we) have no problem with accepting that there is highly divided opinions about the trial and the verdict. The strength of our site is that many of us have made up our minds during the case. We did not start out with prejudice, claiming that Amanda and Raffaele is either definitely guilty or definitely innocent. We get convinced by the evidence as it has been presented, discussed, criticized, counter-argued, criticized, re-informed, etc. etc. This is what is considered ‘true justice’ for Meredith.

Your claim that ‘real professionals have looked at the facts in all three countries’ is not accurate.

The recent report from a number of US-forensic scientists are mainly based upon hearsay and only one test included in their material has actually been presented during the trial against Amanda and Raffaele. There is not public access to all documents of the case - like neither in UK nor US - so curious bystanders and experts cannot examine all evidence presented in court.

Likewise experts are always involved in professional controversies - that is how science progresses in everyday life - and that is how trials are conducted. It is always possibly to find an expert who will contradict any evidence presented in a case. Don’t make the mistake to think that if evidence is object to controversy between peers, it implies that the trial is dubious or flawed.

On the contrary, controversies heighten the level of knowledge of the members of the jury, so controversies is a sign of a just process. The partial experts secure that the jury (and observers) will experience different positions, giving possibility to enquire into the differences, and juxtapose, before making up their mind on a more informed level.

TJMK is a site supporting “a highly criticized trial” - of course: That a trial is criticized does not imply that it is flawed. It only reveals that the trial is being observed by a range of actors with conflicting interests, different opinions and with large variety in level of information and knowledge about the case. The silent claim on TJMK is, that we are the most informed ones, we can argue in details for which evidence is solid and which is not so solid. Critique is central for assuring the quality of a legal process (well of any process, in fact!)

I’m sure that from a general - democratic - perspective all of us will defend Amanda’s right to an appeal (and is most pleased about the Italian juridical systems automatic appeal procedures), but from a more personal perspective, we are most sorry for the harm and grief an appeal case will give the Kercher family.

Maybe you find that the evidence against Amanda did not demonstrate her guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, but you have not participated in the trial in Perugia. The jury, who have seen all evidence, did find her guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Hence the verdict is just, by definition.

Best,
Fiori

Posted by Fiori on 12/08/09 at 07:25 PM | #

Hu curtperom. I would like to add one point to Fiori’s excellent response to you above.

“The media is making mistakes on all fronts, but the fact is real professionals have looked at the facts from various angles are on both sides of the fence in all three countries”

Sadly this is not even remotely true. Well over 90% of the evidence has never been either explained correctly outside the courtroom or challenged. The tendency has been to concentrate on the other 10 percent, and even then most of that still stands.

Read our evidence series and you will see that virtually none of it was challenged. By experts or the defenses or anyone else. Knox’s alibi never was supported by Sollecito. She still has no alibi.

And then read Kermit’s extraordinary 150 questions for Knox and Sollecito.  The number of questions they had answered by the time of the verdict? Approximately none.. 

At the end of the trial, several dozen elephants were still left looming silently there in the courtroom. It was an overwhelming case. Nothing genuinely controversial about it. No experts ever really dented it.

And of course, it was a unanimous verdict.

Justice was done. Now we have to do some of the showing that justice was done. Our mission seems clear, and appropriately on target.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/08/09 at 08:06 PM | #

peter and fiori, you both nailed it.  it is SO difficult to explain to someone who has based their opinion solely on what they hear on american tv.  there is SO much more.  SO much more.  thank you for continuing to seek justice for meredith.

Posted by gramjan on 12/09/09 at 04:13 PM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Meredith Growing Up

Or to previous entry US Overreaction: State Department (Foreign Office) Rebuts Senator Cantwell’s Claims